3,209
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday November 09, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchThe Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 13:13, 30 October 2008
, 13:13, 30 October 2008New page: '''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat</ref> == 1. INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==. I beli...
'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat</ref>
== 1. INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==.
I believe that this one feature of WP is the single greatest factor causing WP’s decline and will largely cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists). It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the MMORPG character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.
If the WP experience has proved nothing else, it has proved that there is indeed a reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members here (including myself) have suggested as a reform that [i]all[/i] article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on WP be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. WP could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish WP from other encyclopedias.
What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [url=http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340]in pertinent part:[/url]
[indent]"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.[/indent]
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars]The Five Pillars of Wikipedia[/url], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of WP is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs WP (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit WP (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
[img]http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg[/img]
[size=4]“So let it be written! So let it be done!”[/size]
== 2. “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES == According to The Jimbo, the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [url=http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340] “NPOV”[/url], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell [i]that[/i] means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.
“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817]official policy[/url] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:
[indent]The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given [i]undue weight[/i] or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.[/indent]
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:
[indent]'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view [i]is[/i] a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).[/indent]
So it would appear that [i]the[/i] central policy of WP requires WP editors to [i]construct[/i] a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.
Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' WP articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).
A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, [i]describe[/i] the position and arguments in support, but don’t [i]make[/i] the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less [i]the[/i] core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which The Jimbo claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
[img]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg[/img]
[size=4]“Words mean what [i]I[/i] say they mean! Neither more nor less!”[/size]
== 3. ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==
Anonymous commentary, particularly that involving political criticism or satire, has a rather long and storied tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.
Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on WP, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263]official policy[/url], the “outing” of personal information about a WP user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, [i]regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct[/i]”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068]“harm”[/url] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.
By the time WP came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, WP can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of WP. But WP is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you [i]are[/i] still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.
Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on WP many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous WP users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on WP. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that WP has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.
I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.
[img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png[/img]
[size=4]“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”[/size]
== 4. HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==
Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of WP, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.
WP does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, WP focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon [i]process[/i] and [i]user behavior[/i]. Central to this view is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625]WP’s official policy on consensus[/url], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:
[indent]Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.[/indent]
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars]“Fourth Pillar”[/url] of WP. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg]the flow chart[/url] which appears on the policy page.
The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality]“wikiality”[/url], the [url=http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality]process[/url] by which [url=http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness]“truthiness”[/url] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert]Tripling Elephants Incident[/url], which in turn led to Colbert being [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert]“indefblocked” from WP by Jimbo[/url] for his crimes of unmutuality.
So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on WP, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR]“No Original Research”[/url] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve WP as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their WP experience. What WP appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.
When it comes to process, it also should be noted that WP lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution]is available[/url]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (WP’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On WP what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.
[img]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg[/img]
[size=4]Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm) T-shirt[/size]
== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}
== 1. INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==.
I believe that this one feature of WP is the single greatest factor causing WP’s decline and will largely cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists). It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the MMORPG character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.
If the WP experience has proved nothing else, it has proved that there is indeed a reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members here (including myself) have suggested as a reform that [i]all[/i] article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on WP be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. WP could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish WP from other encyclopedias.
What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [url=http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340]in pertinent part:[/url]
[indent]"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.[/indent]
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars]The Five Pillars of Wikipedia[/url], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of WP is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs WP (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit WP (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.
[img]http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg[/img]
[size=4]“So let it be written! So let it be done!”[/size]
== 2. “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES == According to The Jimbo, the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [url=http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340] “NPOV”[/url], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell [i]that[/i] means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.
“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817]official policy[/url] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:
[indent]The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given [i]undue weight[/i] or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.[/indent]
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:
[indent]'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view [i]is[/i] a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).[/indent]
So it would appear that [i]the[/i] central policy of WP requires WP editors to [i]construct[/i] a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.
Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' WP articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).
A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, [i]describe[/i] the position and arguments in support, but don’t [i]make[/i] the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less [i]the[/i] core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which The Jimbo claims to be a devotee, could explain this.
[img]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg[/img]
[size=4]“Words mean what [i]I[/i] say they mean! Neither more nor less!”[/size]
== 3. ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY ==
Anonymous commentary, particularly that involving political criticism or satire, has a rather long and storied tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.
Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on WP, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263]official policy[/url], the “outing” of personal information about a WP user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, [i]regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct[/i]”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068]“harm”[/url] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.
By the time WP came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, WP can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of WP. But WP is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you [i]are[/i] still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.
Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on WP many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous WP users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on WP. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that WP has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.
I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.
[img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png[/img]
[size=4]“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”[/size]
== 4. HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR ==
Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of WP, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.
WP does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, WP focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon [i]process[/i] and [i]user behavior[/i]. Central to this view is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625]WP’s official policy on consensus[/url], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:
[indent]Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.[/indent]
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars]“Fourth Pillar”[/url] of WP. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg]the flow chart[/url] which appears on the policy page.
The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality]“wikiality”[/url], the [url=http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality]process[/url] by which [url=http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness]“truthiness”[/url] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert]Tripling Elephants Incident[/url], which in turn led to Colbert being [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert]“indefblocked” from WP by Jimbo[/url] for his crimes of unmutuality.
So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on WP, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR]“No Original Research”[/url] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve WP as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their WP experience. What WP appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.
When it comes to process, it also should be noted that WP lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution]is available[/url]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (WP’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On WP what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.
[img]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg[/img]
[size=4]Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm) T-shirt[/size]
== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}
